Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 08, 2014

Was Obama "Yanked" Into The New Middle East War?

There are big B1-B bombers flying over Kobane and there are U.S. friendlies' eyes on the ground telling them where to drop their bombs. There were many strikes today but the Islamic State fighters, with the help of massive car bombs, are still progressing against the Kurdish defenders.

Last night there were big demonstrations in Turkey by Kurds who demand that the border to Syria be opened to resupply the defenders in Kobane. The Erdogan regime gunned down at least 19 of the peaceful protesters. When will Obama say that Erdogan has "lost his legitimacy"?

The Erdogan regime has put a curfew on all major towns and cities in south east Turkey and deployed the military in the streets. But there are 14 million Turks of Kurdish heritage and if they rise up even the military's might will have trouble to hold them back.

Pat Lang is running a war-game about the Islamic State versus the Coalition war and the first task for the participants was to describe the current situation. One of them, Bandolero, wrote an interesting long term conspired overview over the Middle-East intrigues starting in 2001. I do not necessarily agree with it but find it thought provoking. Bandolero suggests that Obama did not want to engage in the Middle East but was dragged into it. Here is an excerpt as an appetizer:

Despite that Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq are labeled terror organisations, US partners for regime change in Syria, like the Sauds and Turkey, continued to heavily support these organisations (ISIS, Nusra Front et al) deep into 2014, because they deemed them the most effective fighters against the Syrian army, and they want regime change in Syria at any price. Israel and it's friends made clear that they agree with that policy, as they too think, better have Al Qaeda ruling in Syria than Assad. But one such Al Qaeda group, ISIS, - which is likely heavily infiltrated by Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence - slipped out of control of it's Saudi masters. ISIS's attack on Mosul (a megacity where Al Qaeda is very strong and deeply entrenched since many years) was planned by it's masters as a blow against the Iranian-backed government in Baghdad and coordinated with Israel's and Turkish clients in the KRG, but Tehran and Baghdad doubled down, and let it happen largely unchallenged while playing surprised. Their bet is, ISIS takeover of Mosul and some more towns in Iraq and Syria will turn against those countries interests, who fuel the sectarian insurgencies in Syria and Iraq.

Chinahand, aka Peter Lee, like Bandolero sees an unwilling Obama dragged into a war he did not want:

Given the too little too late bombing at Kobane, wonder if one of the rules is "targeting by coalition consensus only". So Turkey saying

"IS stands for 'infrastructure', doesn't it? So let's bomb some buildings!". Becoming clearer that GCC/TK want to drag US back into ME

do the dirty work of checking Shia power in Baghdad, removing Assad, and injecting the money & troops to deal with the mess they created.

& let's not forget Israel is doing its bit by working w/ JAN at the ISR/SYR border. "Want to pivot to Asia? Well, pivot to Hell!"

Hate to say it, but US looks like it's totally getting its chain yanked by GCC, Israel, and Turkey,the most brutally inept actors in ME

& this IS campaign will be quite a bloody debacle

Is Obama really unwilling, yanked on by Netanyahoo, Erdogan and the Saudis, or is this going along his own plans? Bandolero and Chinahand think the first is the case. I am not so sure.

It reminds of those Russian peasants who lamented their lot in life with the phrase: "If only the Czar knew." They believed that if the leader only knew how bad things were, something would change. But of course the Czar did know but didn't care. 

A lot of Obama voters seem to be a bit like those peasants: "If only he could". "If only he were not surrounded by those gastly other folks". "If only those damned Middle Easterners would not yank him into war".

So what is it? Was Obama "yanked" into the new Middle East war or were these his plans all along?

Posted by b on October 8, 2014 at 16:43 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

Sorry b

"But one such Al Qaeda group, ISIS, - which is likely heavily infiltrated by Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence - slipped out of control of it's Saudi masters. ISIS's attack on Mosul (a megacity where Al Qaeda is very strong and deeply entrenched since many years) was planned by it's masters as a blow against the Iranian-backed government in Baghdad and coordinated with Israel's and Turkish clients in the KRG …"

Utter bs, no truth in it whatsoever.

Quite Depressing Really, Obama and the ISIS Crisis
Turkey In Alliance with ISIS - Undermining Obama's Policy In Iraq

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 16:55 utc | 1

Likely source of bs:

Russian Military Intelligence Coordinating Syrian-Iranian Attacks on Rebels, Spying on Israel

Source: The Interpreter.

WhoIs The Interpreter?

Found out shill-reporting for Russian oligarchs at Bad Orange and US websites using MP Hennadii Moskal as source. See The Interpreter and project for Modern Russia, registered by Pavel Petrovich Ivlev, ex Yukos lawyer.

The Interpreter is underwritten by two registered non-profit organizations: the London-based Herzen Foundation [??] and the New York-based Institute of Modern Russia, of which the journal is a special project.
Both organizations are committed to the advancement of democratic values and institutions in the Russian Federation.

For More Information:
http://www.interpretermag.com
Twitter: @Interpreter_Mag

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 17:02 utc | 2

Obomba is out of the loop,a mouthpiece,the dems don't want him to campaign for them(NYTs).He is nada,from the get go a tool of Zionism,and of course we are being played by the Zionists and Yahoo,with the MSM as their bludgeon in manufacturing consent(at least from the 1%,we don't count).I still can't fathom Erdogan's support of these right wing counterparts of Israel and America,he must know he'll be next.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 8 2014 17:06 utc | 3

John Pilger sheds some light on the affair with his latest essay that reveals the destabilization of Syria was long planned for, so this most certainly is a planned war, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/08/from-pol-pot-to-isis/

Furthermore, an op-ed at RT provides further info about the depth of preparing done to destroy Syria by citing relevant documents, and overturning the manufactured "rationale" for regime change, http://rt.com/op-edge/193848-syria-isil-assad-history-usa/

I think Pilger's comparing ISIL's rise with Pol Pot's is apt as is his conclusion.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 8 2014 17:08 utc | 4

If you step back and look at the USA objectives, I think a case can be made that the strategy is to recreate the chaotic conditions previous to WW2 with America as the only stable nation.

Posted by: Peter | Oct 8 2014 17:24 utc | 5

Keep your eyes on the prize, Iran, the first domino to fall, Syria, then Hezbollah, exposing Iran as the last hold out to Israeli, Saudi and US hegemony in the region, that is why the US is playing footsy with the Islamic State, if they were serious they could mount hundreds of sorties a day, and what about those AC-130 Specter Gunships which can fire mini guns at 6,000 rounds per minute, why are they not being used? Turkey has made its position clear they will intervene only with the intervention of others and the intervention is directed at the removal of Assad.It ain't going to happen.

Posted by: harry law | Oct 8 2014 17:25 utc | 6

The articles "B" wrote, show, IMO that all the contradictions that already existed in the Syria & Iraq keep undermining Erdogan's own position in Turkey. In that regard, all these wars help to destabilize the region (including Turkey) even more.

Posted by: Willy2 | Oct 8 2014 17:29 utc | 7

"Obama getting yanked into war?" I seriously doubt that! Obama is a poser whose primary game is to play the "they made me do it" card.

After the "yes, we can," campaign, Obama's modus operandi immediately became, "no, we can't." Despite a solid majority in both houses back in 2009, Obama squandered his honeymoon and failed to pass any progressive legislation, unless you count the Heritage Foundation's Obamacare. He refused prosecution of any powerful interests (banksters, torturers, mega-polluters, etc.) Likewise, the "no, we can't [block the Republican agenda] narrative has been a smokescreen for gutting non-defense spending, making tax cuts permanent, etc.

Meanwhile Obama has been totally amenable to the "surge" in Afghanistan, bombing Libya, and fostering civil war in Ukraine. Renewing the Iraq War would be totally in character, as soon as he senses the moment is right to blame others for what he has intended to do all along.

Posted by: JohnH | Oct 8 2014 17:32 utc | 8

It is well known Syria had to fall in the alliance Saudi Arabia – Israel – USA. Lebanon War was the precursor … who killed Hariri?

NSC Chief Stephen Hadley asked Italy for a Bashar Replacement in 2005

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 17:34 utc | 9

Yes, Obama was (at least in one regard) pushed into waging war in Syria. The mid term elections of 2014 are coming up and it seems the Republicans will be gaining more seats in Congress. He doesn't want to be portrayed as "weak" and that's ONE reason why he started bombing ISIS.

Posted by: Willy2 | Oct 8 2014 17:42 utc | 10

More bs from Bandolero

"Instead of bombing Syria after his reelection Obama listed Al Qaeda's Qatari-backed Syria branch, some of the toughest fighters against the Assad government, as terror organisation. Meanwhile, after the US left Iraq and Syria was in chaos due to the efforts to oust Assad and the resistance against these efforts, Israel and the Sauds feeded a new Sunni tribal and jihadi insurgency in north-western Iraq to at least weaken Iran's friends in Baghdad - or better to overthrow them completely, and to open some more routes to channel support to the insurgency in Syria.

Obama took down the Qatari emir in mid 2013 [?], because of Qatar's open support for Al Qaeda in Syria, and then helped to take down the MB in Egypt, because of their spreading of hatred against Shia and thereby serving Israel's agenda of spreading chaos in the region. Obama's efforts to also take down Erdogan in Turkey failed so far. Erdogan expressed his anger by threatening to leave NATO and team up with Russia and China."

[link added is mine – Oui]

… a waste of time reading this nonsense. Erdogan of Turkey will never leave NATO!

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 17:54 utc | 11

b. thanks for your post. i think the czar analogy is a good one.. my impression of us culture is the president is the 'hero' figure who is always played up in the media as the glorious one who can do no wrong and whose intent is always snow-white.. it is a load of bullshit, but this is part of the made in hollywood political environment that usa presidents are sculpted into...

do i think obama is being dragged into something? we have heard for the past few years how their is a divide inside the usa with the neocon war party pushing for 24/7 war and how obama is not a part of this party.. personally i don't believe that.. he would be gone in a flash if he was not done with the #1 agenda of us geo-politics which is support the financial domino system which in turn supports the military industrial complex and need for war 24/7... so i say he is not being dragged into anything and this is a load of bs propaganda to suggest it is.. i can't believe people believe it either..

my proof? his speech at the UN where he listed the top 3 'evils' facing the globe... he forgot to mention the one he is sitting on top of.

Posted by: james | Oct 8 2014 18:01 utc | 12

done - down..

Posted by: james | Oct 8 2014 18:02 utc | 13

Does one need to yank a pig into a mud puddle? Does one need to yank a Red Mister to the red button? War porn, massive human suffering continues unabated as long as we debate such questions.

The focus on Obama misses the much larger, more important factiod. The US empire (both major parties) is a systemically corrupt war criminal operation, beyond rule of law. The world better replace this Game of Thrones fascist neoliberal chess board into the trash heap of history...and we better do it fast.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Oct 8 2014 18:06 utc | 14


There are only 2 possibilities.

(a) the man is an empty shell, saying & doing exactly what his handlers want him to say & do; the teleprompter-in-chief as it were.

Or (b) , he knows exactly what he is doing and is the evil spirit behind all these shenanigans.

Imagine - a black guy in the oval office! There is not a chance in a million he would have made it there unless he is a willing tool or a card-carrying member of TPTB.

Posted by: Manni Holden | Oct 8 2014 18:32 utc | 15

"Not looking weak for the midterm elections is the ONE reason"... no, maybe one OF the reasons, but regime change in Syria has been the goal all along as step one in reordering the ME, the whole thing is completely muddled with Turkey, KSA, Gulf Emirates, and Israel having their own interests involved in this, and it all goes back to Assad being removed. One big clusterf*ck. I don't think anyone pretends to have a full grasp of everything that's going on with this conflict, or even most of what's going on really.

Posted by: Colinjames | Oct 8 2014 19:16 utc | 16

With regard to our reluctant warrior, it should be said that, for decades POTUS has been more of a figurehead, than a CIC. Yes he has those war powers, but that's just for implementation for policies for which he doesn't have reliable HUMINT for presidential autonomy. I heard a rumor a few years back that his Day-Timer was found in a gutter with a cryptic message like 'you don't want to end up like JFK'. They let him spout homilies with a deft rhetorical flair, and then they just do an end-run around him.

It's been this way since Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 8 2014 19:31 utc | 17

Obama certainly didn't want to be involved in another ME quagmire. The deep state that makes a lot of the important decisions in the US did. Barack Obama the human being (and the policitian) doesn't want to see his legacy as one of endless war and poverty and decay at home. Bad luck for him.

It's also worth noting that in his first term, Obama's focus was on getting out of Bush's ground war in Iraq and moving to a covert, "indirect" war. Drones, bombs, no chance of American soldiers coming home in body bags, and no chance of anyone paying attention. And a much greater role for the intelligence services....

But it doesn't really matter in the end. They've even come out and said the campaign against ISIS will be going on for years and years and years. Plenty of time for the next President to deal with the problem.

Posted by: Almand | Oct 8 2014 19:41 utc | 18

This notion that Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence have sources inside the various jihadi organizations makes complete sense. The only question is whether some of their assets are in positions to influence policy. After ambassador Stevens was killed in the US consulate in Benghazi by local jihad militias it occurred to me that those militias just carried out an operation that only benefited the Syrian government. Stevens was in Benghazi at the time to convince US "allies" in Benghazi to export arms to Turkey along the rat line to be used against Syria. Those same "allies" then killed him. It was a simple deduction to infer that there was someone inside the jihadi militias had operational command that was working for Syria.

This operation against Stevens has had tremendous repercussions, most to Syria's benefit. It set in motion a series of events that has caused Obama to not directly attack Syria (at least one year ago, not clear what the fool is up to today).

Mossad, the CIA, the Turks, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are not the only powers pulling strings behind the scenes. Other players can play this game also.

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 8 2014 19:56 utc | 19

Occasionally the media monopoly will echo what is regular fare on sites like MoA, as NYT did today on its front page (top of the fold, upper right corner) with its story, "Turkish Inaction on ISIS Advance Dismays the U.S.," that comes right out and calls Erdogan's demand for a no-fly zone ridiculous. The story also makes clear Turkey's preference of ISIS to the P.K.K.

I think a line has been crossed. The reporting on Syria in the MSM is now much closer to the blogosphere than it has been since the Arab Spring. The big omission of course is the role of U.S. intelligence services in creating the whole mess. But even here there have been plenty of stories about the ongoing CIA program to topple Assad, like yesterday's story by Karam Shoumali and Anne Barnard:

In an unusual battle near the border with the Golan Heights in southern Syria, another United States-backed group, the Omari Brigades of the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, took a government air defense base on the hilltop of Tel al-Harrah and posted a video of several fighters with what they said was Russian-made government air defense equipment.

A covert United States effort to equip and train relatively moderate insurgents there has had few major successes. More aid has been promised to groups deemed moderate by American officials as part of the campaign against the Islamic State. But it was unclear whether the recent victory was because of new equipment or organization, or if it benefited from recent victories in the area by the Nusra Front.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Oct 8 2014 20:27 utc | 20

"Stevens was in Benghazi at the time to convince US 'allies' in Benghazi to export arms to Turkey along the rat line to be used against Syria."

If you are trying to understand the clusterf*ck of Libya, you're my man!

The CIA had its presence in the Benghazi neighborhood and was already running arms and jihadists to Syria with the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar). Even VP Joe Biden spoke the truth at Harvard last week.

The Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and its militia were responsible for the attack on the compound and killings. The CIA is deeply involved in the present infighting between militias and tribal leaders …

Reagan's CIA Man In Libya Now Employed by Obama

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 20:29 utc | 21

The situation seems much more a result of narrow (and short sighted) actions than due to some nefarious, complicated plan.
Assad must go(tm) has failed in several particulars; ISIS on the other hand is very convenient for:

a) Turkey, because ISIS beats up on Kurds - who are getting awfully big for their britches due to both their virtual states in Iraq and Syria formed up as a result of US intervention induced lawlessness
b) Iraq, because despite the "threat" of ISIS attacking Baghdad, ultimately a splinter Kurdish state sitting on Iraqi oil is a serious problem
c) Saudi Arabia, because it still needs to keep the Salafists busy somehow, somewhere
d) The US - because this gives an nice excuse to continue R2P in Iraq
e) Syria - because ISIS represents exactly what the worst theoretical alternative to Syria is

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 8 2014 20:41 utc | 22

Making this whole scenario about "obama" or 'erdogan' as opposed to the the deeper state apparatus completely embedded in the bureaucracy of the state is one big distraction

ie: bankers, multinationals, oil cartel, arms dealers, military industrial complex etc

The faces and names at the top will change- the agenda never does
why is that?

what obama or erdogan want is irrelevent!
It is the agenda that dictates what the leaders do
clearly the agenda is set elsewhere

Posted by: Penny | Oct 8 2014 20:42 utc | 23

'Bandolero suggests that Obama did not want to engage in the Middle East but was dragged into it'

id agree with this because as we saw last yeat offered a way out by president putin and Russia of attackiog syria he took it...to the fury of a some members of a certain enthic group and quasi state....who DID want it,

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 21:22 utc | 24

while war in ukraine may be a war for the bankers, in the middle east it isnt

'In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote,

It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1]

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 21:24 utc | 25

10 myths about Obama's wars:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/10_myths_about_obamas_latest_war_20141001

Posted by: Willy2 | Oct 8 2014 21:27 utc | 26

".who DID want it,"

A mulligan for the neocons, and he is helpless in the interim. Iran up next, with the bonus of end-gaming Putin.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 8 2014 21:27 utc | 27

'So what is it? Was Obama "yanked" into the new Middle East war or were these his plans all along?

Posted by b on October 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM | Permalink '

i cant agree with this...firstly Obama is no Czar..whatever else he may be...hse aguy with a certain term i office and then hes gone...but we saw the same behavior under the previuos incumbent...anmd what do both regmies have in common: ther same master minds: the neocons

lets ask Robert Parry... who really makes policy in the obama regime?

Exclusive: Official Washington’s bipartisan hysteria over Ukraine and Crimea is evidence that the neocons not only weathered the public fury over the Iraq War but are now back shaping U.S. geopolitical strategies, reports Robert Parry.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/14/neocons-have-weathered-the-storm/


The neocons are also back to their old sleight-of-hand conflating the terrorists fighting the Assad government with the Assad government
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/5401410

so is Obama the grand wizard orchestrating this chaos? or... ' "If only he could". "If only he were not surrounded by those gastly other folks'

this is another war for israel...which is why israel is sitting comfortable in the midst of islamist chaos aided by some really 'gastly other folks'

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 21:36 utc | 28

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8, 2014 1:54:14 PM | 11

so your view is israel has nothing to do with this....funny then that they remain untouched by the insurgency inspite of their genocide against the sunni palestians, some of whom fight for ISIS/alnusra

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 21:44 utc | 29

back in 2012, from Sniegoski:

On Russia Today's "Crosstalk" program on Syria, presented February 10, guest James Morris was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel Lobby has been in the forefront in pushing a hard-line interventionist approach for the United States toward that divided country. The host and the two other guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea, contending that it would not be in Israel's national interest to topple the secular Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even more hostile to Israel. But when one moves from speculation to an analysis of the actual position of members of the Israel Lobby, one sees that Morris was completely correct. Moreover, Morris was completely correct in pointing out that the Lobby's position has nothing to do with ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as Lobby members have perceived it (which perception might not be the same as that of the Crosstalk threesome).

The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel Lobby, have especially been ardent in advocating a hard-line interventionist position. Evidence abounds for that, but it is best encapsulated by an August 2011 open letter to President Obama from the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an organization that claims to address any "threat facing America, Israel and the West"), urging him to take stronger measures against Syria. Among the signatories of the letter are such neocon luminaries as:

• Elliott Abrams, son-in-law of neocon "godfather" Norman Podhoretz and a former national security advisor to President George W. Bush;
• Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations;
• Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard;
• Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy under George W. Bush and an author of the "Clean Break" policy paper;
• Joshua Muravchik, who is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and Commentary;
• Frederick W. Kagan, affiliated with AEI and co-author of the "surge" in Iraq;
• Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC);
• James Woolsey, head of the CIA under President Clinton and chair of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies;
• Randy Scheunemann, former president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs advisor to John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign;
• Reuel Marc Gerecht, former director of PNAC's Middle East Initiative and a former resident fellow at AEI;
• Michael Makovsky, advisor to the propagandistic Office of Special Plans, under Feith;
• John Hannah, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and a former national security advisor to Vice President Cheney; and
• Gary Schmitt, AEI and former president of PNAC.
etc
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_syria_taboo.htm

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 21:47 utc | 30

Brian @ #24 (& #28, #29),

Excellent article. And your taking exception to oui's POV is quite understandable in light of the facts recounted in Sniegoski's five-part article. The Oded Yinon plan as originally proposed has not been strictly adhered to, but the vector of force that it represented as an aspirational policy is very much alive.

Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Oct 8 2014 21:54 utc | 31

"Making this whole scenario about "obama" or 'erdogan' as opposed to the the deeper state apparatus completely embedded in the bureaucracy of the state is one big distraction"

Further explaining my above statement-

Examples of deep state can be found, spoken most prominently about in Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and IMO the US

Pakistan Leader's Predicament Shows Power of 'Deep State'
Prime Minister Sharif Tried to Emulate Turkey's Erdogan, Now Risks Sharing Fate of Egypt's Morsi

http://online.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-leaders-predicament-shows-power-of-deep-state-1410282028

The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-the-deep-state-and-the-wall-street-overworld/5372843

Ergenekon and the Turkish Deep State
http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2013/8/13/ergenekon-and-the-turkish-deep-state.html

Making the talk of Obama being "yanked" true on one hand,but, not accurate on the other- Obama is always being "yanked" along-- because once he is gone and either Hillary or another Bush wins the agenda will continue right along
As it did from Bush to Obama

Posted by: Penny | Oct 8 2014 22:00 utc | 32

@Penny #22:

I agree with you about Obama, but not Erdogan. I don't know enough about the Turkish state to be able to conclude, as you do, that Erdogan is a figurhead like Obama, with the deep state really running things. Erdogan has been conducting purges of the Gülen-infiltrated state bureaucracy for years. That suggests that he is making a serious effort to run things himself. Obama, in contrast, makes no effort to purge the State Department of neocons. (I don't like Erdogan btw, since I am not a fan of the Ottoman Empire. But at least he is not an empty suit.)

@karlof1 #4:

Thank you for those two links. This from the second one is illuminating:

The GID Director said Syria had been more successful than the U.S. and other countries in the region in fighting terrorist groups because ‘we are practical and not theoretical.’ He stated Syria's success is due to its penetration of terrorist groups. ‘In principle, we don't attack or kill them immediately. Instead, we embed ourselves in them and only at the opportune moment do we move.’ Describing the process of planting embeds in terrorist organizations as ‘complex,’ Mamlouk said the result had yielded been the detention of scores of terrorists, stamping out terror cells, and stopping hundreds of terrorists from entering Iraq.
That explains why Syria rarely attacks ISIS, something that has come up repeatedly in the Western press.

@brian #24:

As I've noted before, the US has a geostrategic interest in removing Assad from power:

Qatar transports its gas through the Strait of Hormuz and is therefore dependent on Iran for its exports (with LNG tankers which then need to pass through the Suez Canal). The Emirate had plans to build a gas pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. But, Bashar al-Assad blocked this project, preferring to sign an agreement with his Iranian ally, but above all, to preserve its long-term energy deals with Russia.
That pipeline would make Europe less dependent on Russian natural gas.

A Syria not subdued by the Empire undermines America's full spectrum dominance. Thus, destroying Syria is not merely a Zionist project.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 8 2014 22:01 utc | 33

the tragically amusing thing about all thsi chaos is we have arabs/islamists supposedly sworn enemies of israel working an US/israel agenda. Thats the power of (media) propaganda working to gull sunnis around the globe to fight for a 'caliphate' that serves one main purpose

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 22:11 utc | 34

@32 demian
'I don't like Erdogan btw, since I am not a fan of the Ottoman Empire'
..

sure BUT the Ottomans did one good thing: they put an end to the wahhabi terrorism of their day, putting a stake thru its heart...until the brits (and aussies(Gallipoli!)) ended the Ottoman empire, burning the stake....

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 22:14 utc | 35

for those interested,, Sniegoski has also written on Ukraine

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/05/the-ukrainian-crisis-the-united-states-russia-and-israel/

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 22:16 utc | 36

@8 - An excellent summary of the Obama Administration. "A team of rivals" turned out to be a team of different interests, all firmly behind oligarchy, all anti-human, and all accepting of a state of permanent war.

The real tragedy will be to watch in these coming campaign years the US unions pour money into the next Democratic campaign coffers, to watch the Democratic base gear up for Hillary. And yes, I do mean years - the campaign for 2016 will begin the day the ballots are counted for 2014 midterms.

It's ugly. Very ugly.

Oh, and I do like the Czar analogy. For many - for the secure, for those hypnotized by wedge issues - Obama is still some sort of savior and saint. For those who needed health care, for those who hoped for some improvement in living conditions or justice for the economic destruction and rise in inequality not so much. To the rest, I';m sure, he is still some Muslim socialist married to a transvestite.

America is as insane as it is powerful - a frightening thought.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 8 2014 22:17 utc | 37

@32 demian
'As I've noted before, the US has a geostrategic interest in removing Assad from power:'

but what is meant by 'US'?! US isnt one power bloc but competing interests be they the incumbent political party, the oil lobby ,. israeli lobby, state dept bureaucrats or the pentagon etc each jockying for influence for their agenda

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 22:19 utc | 38

A Syria not subdued by the Empire undermines America's full spectrum dominance. Thus, destroying Syria is not merely a Zionist project.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 8, 2014 6:01:17 PM | 32

i only have to glance at that to find it suspicious ... sure US has its reason to gety rid of Assad...to get weaken russian influence and pave the way to iran etcetc....but thats not al thats involved.
i bet without the neocons in power inUS...the middle east would be a lot quieter..

as for full spectrum dominence... thatd mean taking out every state, including friendlies...Rome tried that.

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 22:24 utc | 39


also of interest: the Kagans

Here Come the Kagans—Their War Plan to Defeat the Islamic State
Obams war plan based on largely illusory armies comes close to the old joke about the hungry hobos talking about what they could have to eat—“If we had some ham we could make a ham sandwich, if we had some bread.” The only thing positive that can be said about Obama’s war plan is that it is not as disastrous as the Kagan alternative.
etc
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/09/25/510190-here-come-the-kagans-their-war-plan-to-defeat-the-islamic-state/

kagans' now world famous for Vicki(Fuck the EU) Nulands gaff.

Posted by: brian | Oct 8 2014 22:29 utc | 40

So what is it? Was Obama "yanked" into the new Middle East war or were these his plans all along?

Neither — he merely does what he's told. You don't seriously think this guy's running the show, do you? They may even go so far as to make him think he is — but he's not. It's not mentally and physically possible.

How interesting — Colonel Mustard is playing games — games within The Game. It sounds familiar as though I've read about something like that lately. I wonder where? Weird. Maybe it's nothing.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 8 2014 22:32 utc | 41

@brian #24:

That's good point. My remark was not well thought out. The only thing I have against the Ottoman Empire is that it occupied some Russian territories.

As far as I can tell, the Ottoman Empire was a multicultural empire, like Russia. It did not, so far as I know, engage in genocide. (Since the Armenian Genocide began during World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was falling apart, I think that that genocide should be attributed to Turkey, rather than to the Ottoman Empire.) The Ottoman Empire was certainly preferable to what replaced it (except for Iraq and Syria, which have/had socialist, secular governments).

So I will reformulate my position: I don't like Erdogan because he is a Muslim Brotherhood type. I hate the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran shows that Shiites are capable of creating an Islamic state in which people are able to live in freedom, but there is no case of Sunnis being able to do the same thing. I have no idea of why Sunni Islamism leads to totalitarianism but Shiite Islamism doesn't, but that certainly seems to be the case.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 8 2014 22:37 utc | 42

@brian #38:

i bet without the neocons in power inUS...the middle east would be a lot quieter..

as for full spectrum dominence... thatd mean taking out every state, including friendlies...Rome tried that.

I don't dispute that the Middle East would be quieter if the federal bureaucracy and the US foreign policy intelligentsia were not infested with neocons. Ukraine would be quieter, too.

Full spectrum dominance does not require taking out friendlies. The EU is more useful to the US as is than it would be if it were turned into Libya. The EU/NATO are vital tools of US power projection.

(In my #40: #24 #34)

Posted by: Demian | Oct 8 2014 22:46 utc | 43

' Is Obama really unwilling, yanked on by Netanyahoo, Erdogan and the Saudis, or is this going along his own plans? '

Or is Obama a nihilist, who cares about nothing - never has, never will - other than the revolving door at the end of his term?

Now in fact, in addition to his role as media shill for the TNCs, plutocrats, and neocons who put him in power he has assumed the celebrity role himself, impersonating a distraction, a soap opera figure about whose 'real motivations' we anguish over and speculate upon.

Obama is 'just following orders'. And will continue to do so. With so many deaths and so much devastation under his belt he's proven himself, as the tongue-flicking reptile he is and they require, to his bosses. He is Adolf Eichmann, not Adolf Hitler, in charge of transportation, just getting us all from here to there - from engaged humanity to banal depravity, just like himself. Marking time, waiting for the 'revolution' on 21 January 2017.

While the rest of us sit on our hands. Occasionally making excuses for the cute, cold-blooded murderer. And for ourselves.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 8 2014 22:52 utc | 44

Kirkuk has a Kurdish majority, the occupation by IS of Mosul was strategic …

Arab majority in Mosul sympathetic to insurgency

Because of the Arab boycott in 2005, the Ninevah Provincial Council is controlled by Kurdish parties, despite the fact that Mosul is predominantly Arab. The Arabs in Mosul accuse the Kurds of targeting the Arab population through assassinations and intimidation. Major Adam Boyd is the senior American intelligence officer in Mosul. He says that because the Arabs have been politically disenfranchised, the Arab majority has been — up until now — sympathetic to the insurgency.

Iran Dominates Market after Occupation of Mosul

After the occupation of the Iraqi town of Mosul by armed groups, including the Islamic State (IS) and the Baath Party — banned by the Iraqi Constitution — prices of food increased significantly, a result of blocked roads and fighting near border crossings, preventing the flow of goods.

Iraq has only two sea routes, the ports of Umm Qasr and Khor al-Zubair, and the following border crossings: Trebil with Jordan; al-Waleed, al-Qaim and Rabia with Syria; Ibrahim Khalil with Turkey; Mundhiriyah with Iran; Arar with Saudi Arabia; and Safwan with Kuwait.

Iraqi markets rely heavily on border crossings for supplies, especially crossings with Turkey, Syria and Iran. The occupation of Mosul reduced access to the crossing of Ibrahim Khalil with Turkey, meaning there are no safe roads from the border to Baghdad and other provinces.

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 23:13 utc | 45

From Al-Monitor, excellent insight …

IS advance threatens foreign investment in Kurdistan
Threat of Islamic State quiets talk of Kirkuk's annexation

Posted by: Oui | Oct 8 2014 23:14 utc | 46

Obama: smooth-talking pitchman for the powerful interests. A highly paid and condescending liar. Gets the sheep to swallow unpalatable policies where only a few benefit. A shill like Bush Jr. was too much of a contemptible idiot, as well as a redneck racist drunk, cokehead and homophobe who should have never been a doorbell salesman, let alone President, but no less a tool than Obama. This is the office of the US President now. The only difference is the wedge issues: Does he like the queers or not? Can I get an abortion if I need it? Anything that even remotely benefits a wide swath of the pop. ie worthwhile and decent paying jobs, affordable college, healthcare, etc. is of little concern to the US Gov Mafia cartel.

I only started seriously watching politics during the advent of Monica Lewisnky's spunk-stained dress, and it's all as plain as day now - I was in denial - The machine is in place and will move forward, regardless of which Dear Leader Salesman of which useless (to average people) political party runs the show. It's come down to, war now or war later? Too many of these competing interests have the same goal (war profits and delusional domination of the whole world) and if Obama appears to be yanked along, by this neocon douche, that oilman, or the JSIL Uber Alles Lobby that appears to have the final say in any foreign policy issues, especially relating to the MENA, it's just more fear theater for the mouth breathers.


Posted by: farflungstar | Oct 8 2014 23:48 utc | 47

@46.

That's an earth-bound assessment of his core values. Also, he was tutored in the Chicago school, and like Daley in 1968, feels the cops are too easy on the protestors.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 8 2014 23:58 utc | 48

More craven lunatics campaigning for 2016 on a platform of war:


Panetta suggests Obama failed to stop Putin in Ukraine

Former US defense secretary Leon Panetta says President Barack Obama’s measures against his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were not enough to stop him in Ukraine.

"I would have taken some very tough positions with regards to Putin," Panetta told Fox News on Tuesday.

The former CIA director also proposed strong military options about the crisis in Ukraine.

"Not just sanctions but I would have also provided military aid to the Ukrainians, resurrected the whole issue on missile defense," he added.

Scumbags.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 0:01 utc | 49

link for @48 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/381448.html

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 0:02 utc | 50

Obama being yanked would make him a ...yankee?

Yankee: n,: someone yanked about on all major foreign and domestic policy issues; one capable of restraint from actual progress and re-direction in wrong directions, and mistrusted and hated the world over.

Worldwide Caution, Last Updated: April 10, 2014

The Department of State has issued this Worldwide Caution to update information on the continuing threat of terrorist actions and violence against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. U.S. citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. This replaces the Worldwide Caution dated September 25, 2013, to provide updated information on security threats and terrorist activities worldwide.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 0:02 utc | 51

We're all a bunch of wankers or Yankers if we don't pay real close attention to the details of any domestic attack.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9 2014 0:06 utc | 52

http://imgur.com/Tt7IwrS

Fairly accurate...

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 0:11 utc | 53

Obama is a sociopath. Psychopathy or sociopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.

Obama is a puppet for the PTB, The One Percent, The Warmongers, The MIC, Big Oil, PHRMA, Big Ag, Wall Street, AIPAC, etc.

Obama simply does as he is told.

Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about any legacy. The MSM will create a lovely narrative for him (see Reagan). Legacy: First Black President (true), Instituted Affordable Public Health Care (complete bullshit, of course).

I have noticed this about our modern presidents: the nearer the end of their term of office, the greater the frequency of occurrence of blatant and utterly stupifying hypocrisy, contradictory statements and doublespeak.

My theory is that they having been twisted in so many directions by the interested parties (among those mentioned) that it becomes impossible (for the speech writers) to reconcile previous lies with the new lies.

The lies that are told to placate the public become so numerous that they cannot be reconciled with either the actions which have contradicted them or the additional lies (generally contradictions) that are piled on top of them.

Posted by: Fast Freddy | Oct 9 2014 0:40 utc | 54

Gordon Duff has a different take on this
www.youtube.com/watch?&v=IjGpy3c4v0w

10:48
GD: The US had lost 2 planes. Here's the story behind this
The US had an F16 they claimed was blown off a runway in Okinawa
It's sitting in pieces in Syria right now
I've been told the pilot has been picked up
I'd like to thank the people who did that
We were told it had been hit by an American built patriot PAC2 missile
Now what ISIS is doing with a PAC2 - this is a pretty good air defence system
This is a 160 km range; this is a Mach 5 missile
One very hard to get out of the way of
One capable of downing just about anything
This is first line stuff
That is identical to the missiles the Israelis are using in their Iron Dome
It's called an Iron Dome type missile
Ended up in the hands of ISIS/ISIL/Daeesh
But the US has ceased military operations against ISIS because ...
There is a plot afoot
Involved in this plot are rogue members of the US military....
Assisting them are US retired
Some affiliated with some Murdoch news empire
...in order to influence the upcoming mid term elections....
...there is an attempt to... 'Jimmy Carter' President Obama
In order to do that, Daeesh wants one or more American pilots that they can threaten to execute on camera prior to the election....

15:15
GD: Here's how Daeesh has been finding planes
Two planes were hit
One F16 was shot down
Pilot recovered
Another, a Marine Osprey, was hit
It had been on a carrier and it was flying a team into Iraq
It was hit by a missile
It was damaged
It got out over the gulf and went down over the gulf
It went into vertical drive and the passengers, we are told, got off alive
I thus far, believe that and I would like that to be true
Daeesh didn't get anyone
.....These are very advanced systems
Just exactly like the ones we gave the Israelis
We can't offer adequate support for the Kurds that are inside Syria that are surrounded by Daeesh
We are looking at the slaughter of up to 100,000 Kurds who are surrounded and fighting to the death .......

18:35
GD: Americans .... with access to operational military intelligence are passing it on to enemy forces .... in order to aid them in shooting down American pilots in order to try to rig the upcoming American elections
We have absolute confirmation on this

Posted by: anonymous | Oct 9 2014 0:56 utc | 55

Kobane seems a funny target for ISIS - close to the border of the military alliance that is supposedly going to wipe them out. A city with an entirely hostile population.

It seems to be an attack undertaken entirely on propaganda generated by it.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 1:38 utc | 56

"Another, a Marine Osprey, was hit. It had been on a carrier and it was flying a team into Iraq. It was hit by a missile. It was damaged. It got out over the gulf and went down over the gulf"

ISIS isn't anywhere near the Gulf. So if they shot down a plane, why would a crippled prop plane fly out over the Gulf to crash?

There's only ever been one report they've shot down a Syrian plane.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 1:45 utc | 58

Obama is doing a good job of "Jimmy Cartering" himself. IOW, his puppetmasters are doing it to him. He has no say in the matter. They've been making an ass of him all along. Not that he minds too much.

BUT, The R Party is afraid of Hillary and unsure if JEB can get enough of the Dubya stink off him to win (get to 50/50 and black box flip and steal the needed votes to win).

A plan like the one at 54 would be extremely beneficial to Team R. It would tar the entire D Party including Hillary with ineptitude, weakness, etc.

Many Americans love tough talking John Wayne theatre. (See Reagan.)

Posted by: Fast Freddy | Oct 9 2014 2:18 utc | 59

"Many Americans love tough talking John Wayne theatre."

Folks at my work today were watching the latest WWF, which now has two Russian characters for the heroes to fake wrestle with and beat on. They even trash talk Putin.

It is, how can I put this delicately... fucking stupid. But speaks to your point about "tough talking theater".

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 2:24 utc | 60

*What would an enthusiastic warrior look like to the corporate media? Would bombing eight countries in six years be enough?*

no sooner had the reluctant warrior started bombing syria when he is already *pressured* [sic] into his eighth war ....the war on ebola !
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id689.html

Posted by: denk | Oct 9 2014 2:35 utc | 61

what a load of shit. No US president is ever "yanked into a war" because under the Constitution it is only Congress that can declare war. If Obama was actually reluctant then he would just say "it is of course up to Congress, I'm only the president." The powers that be are war hungry so they have undermined the wisest clause of our Constitution.

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 9 2014 2:46 utc | 62

Stripes, Oct 7
US-led airstrikes against Islamic State produce few gains

BAGHDAD — After two months, the U.S.-led aerial campaign in Iraq has hardly dented the core of the Islamic State group's territory. The extremist fighters have melted into urban areas when needed to elude the threat, and they have even succeeded in taking new territory from an Iraqi army that still buckles in the face of militants.

In neighboring Syria, days of airstrikes have been unable to stop militants on the verge of capturing a strategic town on the Turkish border.

The limited results show the central weakness of the campaign: There is only so much that can be done from the air to defeat an extremist force that has swept over much of Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State fighters have proven elusive and flexible, able to reorganize to minimize the blows. And more importantly, there are almost no allied forces on the ground able to capitalize on the airstrikes and wrest back territory from the militants.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 3:04 utc | 63

Glad you brought that up. Typically Obama cites the distinctive roles of the Executive and Legislative whenever it is convenient to explain why "his hands were tied" re: particular defeated bills having some small public benefit. (Never using the Bully Pulpit - with the power to engage in direct appeals to the public to pressure Congress).

They're directing these wars from the executive using Cheney's AUMF GWOT as a fig leaf. Congress refuses any part of it.

There's always money for war.

Posted by: Fast Freddy | Oct 9 2014 3:07 utc | 64

@Fast Freddy #53:

First Black President (true)
Obama is black in one sense but not, I believe, in the more relevant sense. Obama is half west European and half Kenyan in terms of ancestry. So, it is only the one-drop rule that makes him black; in other times and societies he would be considered to be a mulatto. (I would never dare write that on an American blog; I would get instantly banned on most.)

The second, more serious consideration is that Obama has no African American ancestry. None of his ancestors were American slaves. Thus, he is not culturally "black", in the American sense of the term.

Now, Jessie Jackson is black. I voted for him in presidential primaries every chance I got. But unsurprisingly, Jackson never had a rat's chance in hell of getting the nomination. Our "first black president" has nothing to do with African Americans; he just has black skin and an African American wife. That America could not manage to elect a "real" black (in the American cultural sense of the word) president, but instead settled for someone whose only claim to being black is the color of his skin, is a major fail, not some kind of breakthrough towards equality for African Americans.

That skin color still trumps cultural background when it comes to what it means to be black shows how racist American society still is.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 9 2014 3:08 utc | 65

If Obama was actually reluctant then he would just say "it is of course up to Congress, I'm only the president."

I suppose this is technically what he did the first time bombing Syria came up. The more I think about that, that was a big fat media scam pulled by on the US, trying to force a decision.

Had they actually wanted a war, they'd have just done what they did now - have one.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 3:33 utc | 66

that needs clarification:

I suppose this is technically what he did the first time bombing Syria came up. The more I think about that, that was a big fat media scam pulled on the US by...certainly the Saudis. Probably the Turks. And possibly the "I trust Obama will do the right thing" Israelis. Trying to force a decision and push the US into war.

Had they actually wanted a war, they'd have just done what they did now - have one.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 3:35 utc | 67

Was Obama "Yanked" Into The New Middle East War?

No. Obama is the notional chief of America's wankers.
Wankers are people who pretend to believe too much of their own bullshit and hope that, by repeating it ad nauseum (ever so sincerely), the sheeple will believe it too.

Wanking is a strictly voluntary form of self-stimulation. So no matter how sincerely Obama might protest his aversion to his ME carnage and vandalism, he's there because he and his fellow-wankers Wanked themselves into it.
Nobody Yanked them there.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 9 2014 3:58 utc | 68

Iran will take action on Kobani if asked: Afkham

Iran's Foreign Ministry says Tehran is ready to take practical measures in dealing with the ongoing chaotic situation in the northern Syrian city of Kobani if it receives an official request from Damascus.

“Kobani is a part of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and if this government makes a request and asks for any assistance, we are ready to help,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said at a press briefing on Wednesday.

She added that Iran would dispatch humanitarian aid and medicine to people in Kobani as soon as possible.

Noting that the Syrian government has not asked Iran for any action against the ISIL terrorists, Afkham said, “We have always announced that national sovereignty and international norms and conventions should be dealt with carefully in every operation against terrorism."

Her remarks come as Kurdish fighters in Kobani are getting the upper hand amid urban warfare between them and the Takfiri ISIL terrorists.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 9 2014 4:03 utc | 69

What is occuring in Syria has been happening since the beginning of war capitalism. The whole filthy mess is just another boardroom meeting with proxy fisticuffs. Problem is the jokers who manage the fight never seem to consider the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.

We don't have to do all the mental gymnastics folks...the syria mess catalyst is all in these two links.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=syria+iraq+iran+pipeline&qs=&form=QBLH

http://www.bing.com/search?q=turkey+gas+pipeline&form=QBRE

Posted by: really | Oct 9 2014 4:04 utc | 70

Wait I got it- It's like that scene in Blazing Saddles with the Sheriff putting the gun to his head and taking himself hostage to foil the would-be lynching townspeople of Rock Ridge. Townspeople= 80% of Americans in favor of bombing. As he says to himself one in the safety of the barn, "baby you are so smoothe... And they are SO DUMB"

Posted by: Colinjames | Oct 9 2014 4:20 utc | 71

@guest77 #68:

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said at a press briefing
So, the Iranian foreign ministry has a spokeswoman. That confirms the point I made before that Iran's version of an Islamic state is not inherently incompatible with human freedom.

Hijabs are always going to be repugnant, however. Nothing is ever going to change that.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 9 2014 4:25 utc | 72

It would seem the Outlaw Empire has devised a non-geographical entity to act as the enemy du jour forevermore, conjuring it up wherever it wants to attack, that like the Hydra will never die. That's the gist of Greenwald's latest, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39907.htm

Welcome to World War Three, unleashed as soon as the Outlaw Empire announced it would seek Full Spectrum Dominance as policy. The Resistance has slowly been jelling and has become a strong enough threat to make the Empire attack it--Ukraine against Russia; and for China, Terrorism in its western provinces and the failed Hong Kong Maidan to be followed by something else.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 9 2014 4:57 utc | 73

Neither — he merely does what he's told. You don't seriously think this guy's running the show, do you? They may even go so far as to make him think he is — but he's not. It's not mentally and physically possible.
...

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 8, 2014 6:32:12 PM | 40

incredible, amazing, unbelievable! i actually agree with cold!
Obama is as Cornel west has said:“Black face of the American empire"

http://rt.com/usa/193688-cornel-west-obama-american-empire/

Posted by: brian | Oct 9 2014 6:24 utc | 74

@65 Actually, Obama was making it clear he didn't need Congress to bomb Syria last year. He should have been impeached.

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 9 2014 7:29 utc | 75

9 October 2014 Last updated at 08:51 GMT
Turkey action against IS in Syria 'unrealistic'
Turkey's foreign minister says it cannot be expected to lead a ground operation against Islamic State (IS) militants in Syria on its own.

Mevlut Cavusoglu also called for the creation of a no-fly zone over its border with Syria after talks in Ankara with new Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg.

Turkey is under intense pressure to do more to help Kurdish forces fighting IS in Kobane on the Syria-Turkey border.

Activists say IS now controls about a third of Kobane after fierce fighting.

Monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, quoting "reliable sources", said IS was advancing towards the centre of the town from eastern districts.

Earlier, a Kurdish leader in Kobane said IS had entered two more districts overnight, bringing in heavy weapons.

Mr Cavusoglu was holding talks with Mr Stoltenberg and US envoys on possible Turkish action against IS. "It is not realistic to expect Turkey to conduct a ground operation on its own," he told a news conference.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29548662

Posted by: okie farmer | Oct 9 2014 9:35 utc | 76

The Iraqi Government have been trying for years to purchase F US F16's to replace the few prop aircraft in their tiny air force “They'd like F-16s and, you know, Polaris submarines and aircraft carriers and a whole bunch of other things,” then-Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told reporters in 2005". Now the story goes..WASHINGTON — The United States has suspended the delivery of military aircraft to Iraq.
Officials said the administration of President Barack Obama has rebuffed Iraqi requests for the combat aircraft after concluding that the Iraqi military was not capable of securing these platforms amid the advance of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/08/07/lack-payment-advance-isil-prompts-u-s-suspend-deliveries-f-16s-apaches-iraq/ Put another way, the Iraqis cannot have the F16's they have already paid for because they are unsuitable for war zones. Whose plonkers are these idiots trying to pull.

Posted by: harry law | Oct 9 2014 9:57 utc | 77

All the Muslims in Obombas cabinet wish he would stop bombing droning and killing Muslims,and have Israel treat the Palestinians as human beings.Oops,there are no Muslims in his cabinet,just Jewish Zionists and toads of Zion.
He hates Muslims,his actions prove it.When he was in Indonesia as a child the neighborhood kids would throw rocks at him because of his black heritage.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 9 2014 14:28 utc | 78

Preventing the fall of the Syrian town of Kobani to Islamic State fighters was not a strategic U.S. objective.

"As horrific as it is to watch in real time what is happening in Kobani ... you have to step back and understand the strategic objective," Kerry told reporters at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.

"Notwithstanding the crisis in Kobani, the original targets of our efforts have been the command and control centers, the infrastructure. We are trying to deprive the (Islamic State) of the overall ability to wage this, not just in Kobani but throughout Syria and into Iraq."

UN's Syria envoy calls for international action to defend Kobane

At least 21 killed in ISIL protests across Turkey as curfew declared in six provinces

Posted by: Oui | Oct 9 2014 14:59 utc | 79

" Was Obama "Yanked" Into The New Middle East War?" LOL!

karlof @ 4: Yes!

MH @15: Yes!

Penny @ 22 & 31: Yes!

CNH : 40: Yes!

Fast Freddy @ 53 Yes!

To discuss other theories is therapy.

Posted by: ben | Oct 9 2014 15:14 utc | 80

Posted by: ben | Oct 9, 2014 11:14:17 AM | 79

Mine was not a yes vote. My answer was that the question is wrong. Obama isn't yanked, he's the horn and hood-ornament meaning he's along for the ride.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 9 2014 15:36 utc | 81

Maybe IS/ISIS/ISIL was created as a distraction to Ebola. If Ebola gets global legs, IS/ISIS/ISIL will seem like Mary Poppins. I wonder if the Really Special People have a vaccine already and the rest of us Small People have to roll the dice that comes up 75% chance you die and 25% chance you live every roll.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 9 2014 15:40 utc | 82

Obama wanted nothing to do with Urkaine or ‘unrest’ in the ME. He wanted to be a ‘conciliator’ the smooth cool type who vanquises with blah. He is a beyond-idiotic narcissist, that one of the reasons he was chosen, he imagined that he could ‘do something’, or maybe that was pretense, for these kinds of ppl what is pretense or genuine has no meaning, it can’t be defined.

Underneath, on the side lines, he has done whatever he could of an Uncle Tom nature - against blacks (see compensation for farmers! ..), against illegals (far more imprisonment and deportation than Bush), against prisoners / offenders / etc., against transparency of the State (more and more secrecy, secret courts even), for privatization of education (he has been a BIG mover on this, there is a lot money to be made), for big biz, big corps, for the finance industry, for health insurers, for Wall Street, for the Pentagon, etc. Many of these moves, imho, he need not have made, possibly, hard to judge, he could have refused or proposed alternatives.

Remember his first foreign foray was to Cairo - many were astonished and critical - Muslims were just ppl like any other he said. Ha ha. He even said he might ‘help’ the Palestinians.

He wants to be adulated have status, garner respect. However, the picture of idealistic, pro-justice attitudes, Peace Prize all that, scothed by the PTB, does not hold. He is a sleazy opportunist, now in a tailspin, caught in his own device. He was chosen as he was intellectually below par, pliable, easy to pressure and control, and extremely confused about practically everything. He has no vision, no knowledge, no on the grounds experience in any area. No principles. People like that often move towards various forms of authoritarianism, control, as it is their only defense - of their position and those around them. That also means war - or rather eliminating ppl by bombing, from the skies. Alternatively, he set out with genuine aims but could not implement.

Now US presidents after Clinton have little power and are more or less figureheads, like a weak CEO combined with head of PR. Or even, an actor who is just paid to go onstage with lines. I also guess that Obama is little/badly informed, he just has to follow along. I do believe he started out with some - maybe weak - power but relinquished it immediately.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 9 2014 15:51 utc | 83

It's always about oil....


"Islamic State militants have been fighting for the past week for control of a key town straddling the Syrian-Turkish border. A victory by IS in Kobani, better known in the Arab world as Ain al Arab, would be a setback for the U.S.-Saudi-led alliance fighting the world’s most dangerous and most powerful terrorist organization.

More importantly, a victory for IS would give the group prestige among the dozens of groups lined up in the fight against Syrian President Bashar Assad. It would also secure the terror organization’s flow of oil to a lucrative market – its link to the outside world via Turkey, as I reported last week."

http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Islamic-State-Battles-Kurds-Over-Border-Town-To-Maintain-Oil-Trade.html

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9 2014 15:52 utc | 84

The US (including Obama, unfortunately) has had a strategy of destabilizing and partitioning Iraq particularly after 2005 when the US realized it had mistakenly transformed Iraq into an Iran ally, and that strategy is now being implemented by ISIL.

Perhaps the details are a little messy, but it does satisfy a US strategy which is why the US didn't put on a show of countering it until it was forced to "do something" by the beheadings. And it's just that, a show. Obama, yesterday at the Pentagon: “It remains a difficult mission. As I’ve indicated from the start, this is not something that is going to be solved overnight.”

And so, "difficult" though it may be, Obama sticks to his anti-Iran strategy.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 16:00 utc | 85

Don Bacon; I can't help having a little sympathy for Obama. He's been left to a Humpty-Dumpty role, and all the king's men can't put the broken pottery back together again. I do wish he had Kennedy's courage wrt to confronting the security apparatus, but he acts more out of fear for his own demise, legacy or lifespan. Soldiers risk their lives every day for the cause. Why can't he?

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9 2014 16:11 utc | 86

@Ben Franklin #85
I do wish he had Kennedy's courage wrt to confronting the security apparatus, but he acts more out of fear for his own demise, legacy or lifespan. Soldiers risk their lives every day for the cause. Why can't he?

Because he's incapable of doing anything besides reading a TelePrompter.
Obama was a bum choice from the get-go. Some smart people had him pegged in 2008.
Black Agenda Report, May 7, 2008, by Bruce A. Dixon

Running to the Right: Barack Obama and the DLC Strategy

DLC endorsement is the gold standard of political reliability for Wall Street, Big Energy, Big Pharma, insurance, the airlines and more. Though candidates normally undergo extensive questioning and interviews before DLC endorsement, Obama insisted the blessing of these corporate special interests had been bestowed on him without these formalities and without his advance knowledge, and formally disassociated himself from the DLC. But like Hillary Clinton, and every front running Democrat since Michale Dukakis in 1988, Barack Obama's campaign has adopted the classic right wing DLC strategy.
[snip]
When he does speak, it won't be good news. Republicans are sure to escalate their demands, insisting that Barack Obama denounce a list of black and progressive organizations, activities, beliefs and individuals to retain his share of their base. And as long as Obama is wedded to the DLC strategy, he will eagerly comply.

If there was an actual mass-based progressive movement in the US, operating on the ground and independent of political parties and campaigns, it might have a prayer of holding Barack Obama accountable. But there isn't.


Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 16:21 utc | 87

Apart from some serious cock-sucking by the Yankees, I still can't see why Vlad & Assad let Obama get away with saying he "doesn't need to ask permission to bomb (ISIS in) Syria." It does not add up. Vlad's flotilla was parked offshore for the express purpose of preventing Obama from bombing Syria.

"We" all suspect that Obama's immediate Syria mission is to gather targeting info on Syria's infrastructure and defense systems for 'future reference'.

b's reference to B2 bombers being deployed against ISIS could provide a clue. Vlad's long-range Early Warning Radar systems have detected all kinds of useful things during the past 12 months and by the time the sun sets on Obama's ISIS bombing campaign, Russia will have a cornucopia of mission and flight performance and pattern data on a whole range of aircraft, together with many trends - superimposed on regional maps.

Just speculation, of course, but there's got to be a better reason than we've been told for Syria/Russia taking the risk of letting the Yankee foxes mingle with the Syrian chickens...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 9 2014 16:22 utc | 88

@Ben Franklin #85
Besides, as I posted, he's implementing the US anti-Iran strategy, which makes no sense except in Washington politics, which is where Obama resides.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 16:23 utc | 89

Kerry "the original targets of our efforts have been the command and control centers, the infrastructure". But IS have no command and control centers or infrastructure, the man is an idiot. Or have we found 'the missing link'?

Posted by: harry law | Oct 9 2014 16:26 utc | 90

"Because he's incapable of doing anything besides reading a TelePrompter."

He's apparently the cold customer everyone believed. I know when Rahm was inside the WH, he gave him free reign except for his disputes with FLOTUS. One thing he can't stand is drama, because drama implies passion and rectitude. Can anything good come out of Chicago?

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9 2014 16:27 utc | 91

@Hoarsewhisperer #87
The US military loves to try out its new weapons, including glide bombs, on real people and US enemies benefit from seeing what their capabilities are. Nobody gets hurt, in the major powers. It's only the poor peasants below the bombs, and who cares about them. They are target material, is all.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 16:28 utc | 92

demian @ 32

"I agree with you about Obama, but not Erdogan. I don't know enough about the Turkish state to be able to conclude, as you do, that Erdogan is a figurhead like Obama, with the deep state really running things'

You didn't feel the protests just before the Turkish election were the 'deep state' in action? It sure looked that way. Erdogan certainly believed that to be the case. And made many comments to that effect.

"Erdogan has been conducting purges of the Gülen-infiltrated state bureaucracy for years"

Agree he has but it's likely just scratching the surface.
Likely the deep state roots are deep and abundant

Then of course their is the embedded NATO apparatus. Turkey is after all NATO's "southern flank" Making it a very strategic nation.

https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/702

It seems sensible that the NATO structure both supersedes the Erdogan administration and is part of the deep state.
Just as equally as it supersedes the leadership in the US and Canada, while being as deeply embedded in the aforementioned nations. Because NATO is much larger then any one nation state.

In my opinion, that is.

Posted by: Penny | Oct 9 2014 16:29 utc | 93

@ harry law #89
Kerry "the original targets of our efforts have been the command and control centers, the infrastructure". But IS have no command and control centers or infrastructure

The Pentagon regularly releases videos of bombs blowing up compounds, which include one or more buildings, a surrounding wall, etc. It makes a great video, featuring precision bombing of dangerous places. We don't see the misses, and we don't see million-dollar missiles blowing up one or two ISIL fighters. That's not interesting.

So the featured compounds in the videos, which might be anything, farm houses etc., become "command and control centers." (You weren't supposed to notice that IS has none.)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 16:34 utc | 94

oops - just to be sure.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 9 2014 16:35 utc | 95

Vlad's long-range Early Warning Radar systems have detected all kinds of useful things during the past 12 months and by the time the sun sets on Obama's ISIS bombing campaign, Russia will have a cornucopia of mission and flight performance and pattern data on a whole range of aircraft, together with many trends - superimposed on regional maps.

MA Flight 370 trumps all of that. It was an exhibition.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 9 2014 16:47 utc | 96

Don Bacon; I can't help having a little sympathy for Obama. He's been left to a Humpty-Dumpty role, and all the king's men can't put the broken pottery back together again. I do wish he had Kennedy's courage wrt to confronting the security apparatus, but he acts more out of fear for his own demise, legacy or lifespan. Soldiers risk their lives every day for the cause. Why can't he?

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9, 2014 12:11:18 PM | 85

This is straight out of the CIA propaganda playbook on how to manage the perceptions of the intelligentsia. Containment at its best. I'm not certain about Carter, but there hasn't been a President who isn't CIA since Nixon/Ford besides Reagan and Reagan was a flawed prototype. He was a puppet, but he wasn't CIA. It would take a few more years before CIA presidential candidates were fully developed in the bull pen before they could be rolled out.

And since they enabled the murder of JFK, they have to now tout him as a heroic profile in courage using their Mockingbird Press to paint false images and narratives. JFK was mediocre at best and most assuredly was not a man of The People. We'll never know why they really murdered him, but the reasons provided by the conspiracy theorists don't cut it. There's more to it, but we'll never know. Perhaps the answer resides in the sentiment of Eyes Wide Shut.

Damn, if Church had been like that, I'd still be religious rather than an agnostic.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 9 2014 17:13 utc | 97

@82 Noirette.. i would say that is a fairly astute description and observation on obama. thanks.

Posted by: james | Oct 9 2014 17:20 utc | 98

With regard to our reluctant warrior, it should be said that, for decades POTUS has been more of a figurehead, than a CIC. Yes he has those war powers, but that's just for implementation for policies for which he doesn't have reliable HUMINT for presidential autonomy. I heard a rumor a few years back that his Day-Timer was found in a gutter with a cryptic message like 'you don't want to end up like JFK'. They let him spout homilies with a deft rhetorical flair, and then they just do an end-run around him.

It's been this way since Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 8, 2014 3:31:30 PM | 17

" but there hasn't been a President who isn't CIA since Nixon/Ford besides Reagan"


If you actually read before commenting, you might learn something worthwhile.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9 2014 17:24 utc | 99

Of course JFK knew the danger when he threatened to break the CIA into a million pieces after the Bay of Pigs back-stab. Obama is no JFK or AL.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 9 2014 17:27 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.